Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 31:1 (2019) ► pp.98–124

Shorter than a text, longer than a sentence

Source text length for ecologically valid translation experiments

ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
 | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
This paper investigates what effect the length of the source text has both on the translation process and on the translation product. In an eye-tracking and keystroke logging experiment, we compared three conditions, namely full texts, three-sentence sequences and single sentences as source items. The results suggest that translations of single sentences differ significantly from full texts, whereas three-sentence sequences are representative of the full text condition. Therefore, research in process-based translation studies might benefit from using shorter source texts without endangering the ecological validity of experiments.
Keywords: translation experiments, experiment design, source text length, literal translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Experimental design
    • 2.2Behavioral measures
    • 2.3Literality
    • 2.4Statistical modelling
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Results of the process analysis
    • 3.2Results of the product analysis
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17122.hei
References (45)
References
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Couto Vale. 2009. “Probing the Unit of Translation in Time: Aspects of the Design and Development of a Web Application for Storing, Annotating, and Querying Translation Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 251–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: A Corpus Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 11: 105–122.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva. 2014. “Effortful Text Production in Translation: A Study of Grammatical (De)metaphorization Drawing on Product and Process Data.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 9 (1): 25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2010. “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-based Translation Research.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Yoav, and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 57 (1): 289–300.Google Scholar
Bursac, Zoran, C. Heath Gauss, David Keith Williams, and David W. Hosmer. 2008. “Purposeful Selection of Variables in Logistic Regression.” Source Code for Biology and Medicine 3 (17). [URL]. DOI logo
Camblin, C. C., Peter C. Gordon, and Tamara Y. Swaab. 2007. “The Interplay of Discourse Congruence and Lexical Association during Sentence Processing: Evidence from ERPs and Eye Tracking.” Journal of Memory and Language 561: 103–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “Translog – II: A Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 4108–4112.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. 2016. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, and Arnt L. Jakobsen. 2011. “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal 16 (2). [URL]
Chesterman, Andrew. 2011. “Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, edited by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild and Elisabet Tiselius, 23–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couto Vale, Daniel. 2017. “What Does a Translator Do When Not Writing?” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited by Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hoffmann, 177–208. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
da Silva, Igor. 2012. (Des)compactação de significados e esforço cognitivo no processo tradutório: Um estudo da metáfora grammatical na construção do texto traduzido. PhD thesis Federal University of Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004-. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). [URL]
Dragsted, Barbara. 2005. “Segmentation in Translation: Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge G. Hansen. 2008. “Comprehension and Production in Translation: A Pilot Study on Segmentation and the Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 9–29. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Efron, Bradley. 2010. “Correlated z-Values and the Accuracy of Large-Scale Statistical Estimates.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (491): 1042–1055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2001. “Literacy and Linguistics: Relationships between Spoken and Written Language.” In Analysing English in a Global Context, edited by Anne Burns and Caroline Coffin, 181–193. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Jean Nitzke, and Katharina Oster. 2017. “Predicting Cognate Translation.” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited by Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hoffmann, 3–22. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost Van de Weijer. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L. 1999. “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” In Probing the Process in Translation Methods and Results, edited by Gyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2002. “Orientation, Segmentation, and Revision in Translation.” In Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product, edited by Gyde Hansen, 191–204. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2016. “Syntactic and Pragmatic Transfer Effects in Reported-Speech Constructions in Three Contact Varieties of English Influenced by Afrikaans.” Language Sciences 561: 118–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff, and Rune H. B. Christensen. 2016. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models: R package. [URL]
Mauranen, Anna. 2004. “Corpora, Universals and Interference.” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist? edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 65–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamee, Roseanne. 2005. ”Regression Modelling and Other Methods to Control Confounding.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 62 (7): 500–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, Raymond, Terry Nadasdi, and Katherine Rehner. 2005. “Contact-Induced Linguistic Innovations on the Continuum of Language Use: The Case of French in Ontario.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8 (2): 99–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Stella, Adriana Pagano, Fabio Alves, Pirita Pyykkönen, and Igor da Silva. 2010. “Targeting (De-)metaphorization: Process-Based Insights.” The 22nd ESFCW, Koper, Slovenija, July 2010.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2009. “Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research: Methodological Challenges and Solutions.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, edited by Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 251–266. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Michael. 2003. RSTTool: An RST Markup Tool. [URL]
Pyykkönen, Pirita, and Juhani Järvikivi. 2010. “Activation and Persistence of Implicit Causality Information in Spoken Language Comprehension.” Experimental Psychology 57 (1): 5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Radach, Ralph, Lynn Huestegge, and Ronan Reilly. 2008. “The Role of Global Top-Down Factors in Local Eye-Movement Control in Reading.” Psychological Research 72 (6): 675–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rautenberg, Rosa. 2011. (De-)Metaphorization in English-German Translation: A Quantitative Analysis of a Keystroke-Logging Experiment. State examination thesis RWTH Aachen University.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2014. “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” In Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation, 29–37.Google Scholar
Stamenov, Maxim I., Alexander Gerganov, and Ivo D. Popivanov. 2010. “Prompting Cognates in the Bilingual Lexicon: Optimizing Access during Translation.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 323–347. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text: A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobii Technology. 2012. User Manual Tobii Studio: Version 3.2. [URL]
Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Freiwald, Jonas, Zoë Miljanović, Arndt Heilmann & Stella Neumann
2024. Ecological validity in corpus-based and experimental translation research. Ampersand 12 ► pp. 100155 ff. DOI logo
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela & Anne Catherine Gieshoff
2023. ELF Density: Extending English as a Lingua Franca Research to Monological ELF Texts and Speeches. Applied Linguistics 44:3 ► pp. 505 ff. DOI logo
Božović, Petar
2023. How should metaphors be rendered in audiovisual translation?. Translation and Interpreting Studies 18:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Jonas Freiwald, Stella Neumann & Zoë Miljanović
2022. Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2022. Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Heilmann, Arndt & Carme Llorca-Bofí
2021. Analyzing the Effects of Lexical Cognates on Translation Properties: A Multivariate Product and Process Based Approach. In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3], ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Jonas Freiwald & Stella Neumann
2021. Animacy and agentivity of Subject Themes in English-German translation. Lingua 261 ► pp. 102813 ff. DOI logo
Steiner, Erich, Bo Wang, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Yuanyi Ma
2021. Bridging boundaries between systemic functional linguistics and translation studies. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 14:3 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Steiner, Erich, Bo Wang, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Yuanyi Ma
2021. Bridging boundaries between systemic functional linguistics and translation studies. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 14:3 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.